Here's a question. What if a Democrat in one of the states the was religious but not completely conservative, like say Virginia or Missouri, spoke about all their policies as enlightened by religion? If conservatives do it, then why not liberals?

There would be one requirement. They would have to be pro-life. No one will believe them if they aren't.

But what if they said they wanted to resolve the immigration problem because Mexicans are people too and God knows no nationalities? What if they said they felt God wanted them to find a balance between preserving America but helping the hard working poor as Jesus said?

What if they claimed that nationwide health insurance is an imperative because God doesn't want anyone to suffer and it is up to the more fortunate to help the rest?

What if they claimed that while God wants peace in the Middle East, we have given it our best shot to help the people of that lesser religion over there in Iraq and our help hasn't worked out so "They just aren't ready to receive God's gift of peace quite yet" and now we have to look at doing the best for our troops.

Has anything like this ever been tried? I don't see why Democrats should cede the God vote over to Republicans without trying to grab some of it. A guy like Obama is very likable and has a down to earth charm and I think throwing in some religion could really help him. But I'm also just talking in general with all Democrats. Why not put in enough God stuff to look religious, but not enough to go overboard and threaten liberal voters? Surely talking about health insurance, immigration, and helping the poor in terms of religion can't be viewed as a negative.

Here's a question. What if a Democrat in one of the states the was religious but not completely conservative, like say Virginia or Missouri, spoke about all their policies as enlightened by religion? If conservatives do it, then why not liberals?.

Well there would be the multitude of issues with which is doesn't sit well with liberals. However all the front runners on the Democratic side have been using religious language, claim to profess a religion, and are definitely seeking the religious vote this time.

Quote:

There would be one requirement. They would have to be pro-life. No one will believe them if they aren't.

Not at all, Democratic Catholics chucked the pro-life bit quite a while ago.

Quote:

But what if they said they wanted to resolve the immigration problem because Mexicans are people too and God knows no nationalities? What if they said they felt God wanted them to find a balance between preserving America but helping the hard working poor as Jesus said?

What if they claimed that nationwide health insurance is an imperative because God doesn't want anyone to suffer and it is up to the more fortunate to help the rest?

What if they claimed that while God wants peace in the Middle East, we have given it our best shot to help the people of that lesser religion over there in Iraq and our help hasn't worked out so "They just aren't ready to receive God's gift of peace quite yet" and now we have to look at doing the best for our troops.

Well you have a couple very large problems with the religious thing and liberals. First, they honestly believe they are rational and reasonable. Al Gore even thinks they have a monopoly on such traits at this time. The reality is that most Democratic policies are about holding up a few examples of the lower classes as being "helped" to keep them mollified and keep the elites in power. The lack of thinking in most policies is deplorable and shows nothing more than manipulation of many of the -isms, (racism, sexism, etc.) Adding religion to such a hodge-podge of ideas would likely cause the entire house of cards to tumble and the lack of thinking would allow their brains to calcify.

What if God is sick of old people trying to live forever and having half the national poverty rate while children starve?

What if the balance between between preserving America and helping the working poor means that you follow the laws of supply and demand, and must limit supply in order to raise demand, aka limit the supply of cheap labor to raise the demand or wages of that labor? What if it really isn't even about preserving America but simple logic that you cannot organize, unionize, or even get time off to improve and educate yourself if there is an inexhaustible supply of cheap slave labor right behind you.

What if the reality is that you cannot have national health insurance and open borders at the same time? What if you believe in an all powerful and thus are a fatalist and don't sweat your health in this life as you prefer the afterlife?

What if God demands you put on the sword and shield of...whatever those traits were and go convert the middle east?

Quote:

Has anything like this ever been tried? I don't see why Democrats should cede the God vote over to Republicans without trying to grab some of it. A guy like Obama is very likable and has a down to earth charm and I think throwing in some religion could really help him. But I'm also just talking in general with all Democrats. Why not put in enough God stuff to look religious, but not enough to go overboard and threaten liberal voters? Surely talking about health insurance, immigration, and helping the poor in terms of religion can't be viewed as a negative.

Of course it has been tried. The whole civil rights movement grew out of the church. The problem is that while trying to establish equality, the ruling elites decided to establish a system of racial spoils instead so that now you have West Indian blacks, who were never slaves arguing with Filipinos, who were also never slaves about why the white elites oppress them so and who got more or less instead of who was merely treated like a human and equally.

You have, as we argued in a different thread the belief that having a womb gives you control inside your body, outside your body, a freedom from offense, a desire for equal or better wages for "comparable" work and the right to divorce without cause all in the name of what... God?

Finally you have all of this built on a history of grievances. A history that must be retold over and over to insure that the original sin of racial or sexual ignorance in the past is never forgiven. You can't have a religious concept like grace make its way into a political ideology that is based on never forgiving. Sure Dr. King said that an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind, but we still have to get and pluck one more eye in the name of historical fairness and equality. It doesn't matter if it is fair and equitable now, it wasn't then and we must get ours because even though we have an unlimited afterlife, and it isn't even about money because the meek and poor shall inherit the earth, we've got to get ours now. Pluck out that eye man, pluck it out.

First, the far right so called fundies do not represent American Christians. They are just the ones with the biggest mouths and the most radio programs. Beware anyone who continuously tells you how religious they are. Jesus was not very complementary of such people.

Second, the far right paints everyone to their left as anti-Christian. Obviously not true.

We need to get beyond drawing conclusions from looking only at the opposing fringe.

In America, Jesus is a Republican. And any religion that isn't about Jesus is not welcome.

That's not true. It's just that liberal beliefs often don't jive with devout Christian ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

Republican Jesus fights terror and fags.

Democrat Jesus is a trick to raise taxes to buy trinkets for Negroes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm trying to think of a major Democrat who hasn't played up religion... Nope, can't think of any.

Excellent point, but I think that's because they know they are seen as not being people of faith.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shetline

Imagine an America where candidates didn't have to pander to religion and demonstrate that they are People of Faith to win.

Maybe in 50 years. If we're lucky.

Another good point. However, I also think that people want to know what someone's actual beliefs are as they believe it defines that person's character. But I agree...I get so sick of hearing about religion. Oh, and how to I use superscript on the boards. In over 7,000 posts I've never figured it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BRussell

By all accounts Reagan was a non-believer. I don't know if you can count someone who was so strongly supported by, and in fact ushered in the era of, the religious right, though.

By what accounts and why do you think that? I've never really heard that charge (for lack of a better term) before.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I think he's talking about the fact that Jesus preached extensively against abortion and gay marriage, and in favor of tax cuts and a strong military.

Well, liberals tend to be pro-choice or outright pro-abortion. Christians are mostly pro-life. Liberals have a higher percentage of atheists in their ranks (don't ask me for a link on that one...I'm assuming we all agree there). A good number of liberals seem to believe in a humanistic approach. Many oppose Creationism in all forms, including intelligent design and the notion of God being "involved" in evolution. I have also noticed, anecdotally speaking, that many liberals tend to simply look down on church goers and the religious in general as stupid sheep. Just a few examples off the top of my head.

And BRussell, in many ways Jesus DID preach about those things.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Well, liberals tend to be pro-choice or outright pro-abortion. Christians are mostly pro-life. Liberals have a higher percentage of atheists in their ranks (don't ask me for a link on that one...I'm assuming we all agree there). A good number of liberals seem to believe in a humanistic approach. Many oppose Creationism in all forms, including intelligent design and the notion of God being "involved" in evolution. I have also noticed, anecdotally speaking, that many liberals tend to simply look down on church goers and the religious in general as stupid sheep. Just a few examples off the top of my head.

And BRussell, in many ways Jesus DID preach about those things.

Please, SDW, please tell me who is not pro-choice, but pro-abortion? Who, among the democrats or liberals wants to remove the potential mother's choice, and actually force an abortion?

I have doubts about pro-life and christianity. I think many christians make the distinction between the fetus and a full-birth. Most of the country wants some form of abortion to remain legal.

A great many christians believe evolution is the mechanism by which god created his creatures during a non-literal 6 days.

Looking down at church-goers and religious types is a fairly vocal part of the party. I suspect its more common among internet types. And no leaders of the party (that I know of) have engaged in anything close to that; aside from, perhaps, disputes between the various sects.

Chapter and verse for Jesus' condemnation of taxes (or favor for cuts)? I seem to recall something about rendering unto ceasar. And for his approval of military buildup? First thing to mind is my thought on which sinner might cast the first bullet.

Please, SDW, please tell me who is not pro-choice, but pro-abortion? Who, among the democrats or liberals wants to remove the potential mother's choice, and actually force an abortion?

I have doubts about pro-life and christianity. I think many christians make the distinction between the fetus and a full-birth. Most of the country wants some form of abortion to remain legal.

A great many christians believe evolution is the mechanism by which god created his creatures during a non-literal 6 days.

Looking down at church-goers and religious types is a fairly vocal part of the party. I suspect its more common among internet types. And no leaders of the party (that I know of) have engaged in anything close to that; aside from, perhaps, disputes between the various sects.

Chapter and verse for Jesus' condemnation of taxes (or favor for cuts)? I seem to recall something about rendering unto ceasar. And for his approval of military buildup? First thing to mind is my thought on which sinner might cast the first bullet.

Oh stop. Every time I use the phrase "pro-abortion" it's same predictable response. "But SDW...no one wants to FORCE it on anybody...." Except that's not what I'm saying. There are those that believe abortion is a perfectly acceptable method of birth control. Many oppose counseling to steer women to alternatives that don't involve killing their babies. Many don't believe life begins at conception. That's all called "pro-abortion." And it's different than pro-choice, by far.

As for Democrats, again, you're supposing and making excuses. You're not supporting that contention at all. Liberals (which is what I said, btw...not "Democrats" do have higher percentages of atheism within their ranks and from my experience, tend to look down on churchgoers...whether they are vocal or not.

Evolution: Uh...thanks for arguing my point. I'm talking about those who don't believe God played any role, those who mock people who do believe it. And those people tend to be liberals.

On Jesus: I'm poking fun, not making a serious argument here. Relax.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

......As for Democrats, again, you're supposing and making excuses. You're not supporting that contention at all. Liberals (which is what I said, btw...not "Democrats" do have higher percentages of atheism within their ranks and from my experience, tend to look down on churchgoers...whether they are vocal or not......

Mrrrff? I don't see anything in your assertion that isn't supposition, and nothing to support it. Unless you count "in my experience", in which case conservatives tend to be bloodthirsty maniacs, by the same metric.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Mrrrff? I don't see anything in your assertion that isn't supposition, and nothing to support it. Unless you count "in my experience", in which case conservatives tend to be bloodthirsty maniacs, by the same metric.

Are you disagreeing with my assertion that liberals have higher numbers of atheists (and agnostics) in their ranks than do conservatives? Or are you just playing games?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Are you disagreeing with my assertion that liberals have higher numbers of atheists (and agnostics) in their ranks than do conservatives? Or are you just playing games?

I'm just saying that you're accusing thu Freak of making unsupported assertions and countering with unsupported assertions.

I agree that it's the conventional wisdom, but is there actually any evidence of this? I'm fairly sure that the ranks of self-described "conservatives" have a fair share of "got no use for no superstitious nonsense" types, and I'm pretty sure there are a fair number of "liberals" that would not call themselves "atheists", even if their beliefs wouldn't exactly put them in the front pew of the local Baptist church.

But that's just my impression. Evidence?

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

A much wiser political move would be for the democrats to ditch the EU socialism thing they tend to push. People in the EU often are perturbed when they hear "EU socialism," but I didn't coin the term -- it's widespread -- and I would argue that a fedralized bureaucracy of heavy subsidies and requirements for social programs in member states is more socialism than anything else.

Anyway, the Republicans are a lost party, but the Dems are so far out of touch that's it's simply ridiculous. If they had a clue, the Republicans would be in real trouble, and in the process of trying to reinvent their party perhaps even with a different name.

I'm just saying that you're accusing thu Freak of making unsupported assertions and countering with unsupported assertions.

I agree that it's the conventional wisdom, but is there actually any evidence of this? I'm fairly sure that the ranks of self-described "conservatives" have a fair share of "got no use for no superstitious nonsense" types, and I'm pretty sure there are a fair number of "liberals" that would not call themselves "atheists", even if their beliefs wouldn't exactly put them in the front pew of the local Baptist church.

But that's just my impression. Evidence?

I guess I could dig up some evidence if you like. All you really have to do is look at the number of regular church goers who identify as R or D. Well, not all, but that's a start.
But my question is...why are you interested in evidence if you don't suspect the conventional wisdom is wrong? It just seems like a posting-debate game to me. Not sure I have the energy to play today.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

A much wiser political move would be for the democrats to ditch the EU socialism thing they tend to push. People in the EU often are perturbed when they hear "EU socialism," but I didn't coin the term -- it's widespread -- and I would argue that a fedralized bureaucracy of heavy subsidies and requirements for social programs in member states is more socialism than anything else.

Anyway, the Republicans are a lost party, but the Dems are so far out of touch that's it's simply ridiculous. If they had a clue, the Republicans would be in real trouble, and in the process of trying to reinvent their party perhaps even with a different name.

They won't ditch it because that is what they believe. This is one area where I really like to hear from Rudy G, where he talks about the difference in their philosophy as compared to his and many GOPers.

All talk of the war, corruption, spending earmarks, etc. aside: The Democrats, particularly the Presidential Candidates all want nationalized healthcare, higher taxes to pay for it and more business regulation. The GOP doesn't. The funny thing is Hillary's signature issue, Healthcare, might end up getting Giuliani elected. His plan of giving a large tax deduction to people buying their own insurance would accomplish exactly what he says it would: Getting the government and employers out of the healthcare business to drive down costs and drive up quality with the free market. Contrast this with various socialized medicine proposals from the Dems (call them you will...that's what the proposals are). The Dems want EU "not un-democratic socialism).

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Oh stop. Every time I use the phrase "pro-abortion" it's same predictable response. "But SDW...no one wants to FORCE it on anybody...." Except that's not what I'm saying. There are those that believe abortion is a perfectly acceptable method of birth control. Many oppose counseling to steer women to alternatives that don't involve killing their babies. Many don't believe life begins at conception. That's all called "pro-abortion." And it's different than pro-choice, by far.

Those people are particularly irresponsible, and not representative of the left or party. They are a group who is perceived to be larger than they are, if any truly exist.

Quote:

As for Democrats, again, you're supposing and making excuses. You're not supporting that contention at all. Liberals (which is what I said, btw...not "Democrats" do have higher percentages of atheism within their ranks and from my experience, tend to look down on churchgoers...whether they are vocal or not.

i actually agree with you on dems or libs having more atheists. a former leader of the republican party cast the atheists out, just a few presidents ago. i, myself, am more antitheist (at least recently); but again i dont think its representative of the party or the liberals in general (oh, that it were so).

Quote:

Evolution: Uh...thanks for arguing my point. I'm talking about those who don't believe God played any role, those who mock people who do believe it. And those people tend to be liberals.

Pardon my brainfart. Here is as I intended:
A great many dem & lib christians believe evolution is the mechanism by which god created his creatures during a non-literal 6 days.

creationism simply shouldn't be respected as an accurate description of the physical world; it is demonstrably false. its a myth, like astrology.

I guess I could dig up some evidence if you like. All you really have to do is look at the number of regular church goers who identify as R or D. Well, not all, but that's a start.
But my question is...why are you interested in evidence if you don't suspect the conventional wisdom is wrong? It just seems like a posting-debate game to me. Not sure I have the energy to play today.

I wouldn't worry about it SDW. I few people on here lately have been challenging all statements simply because they feel like creating work for others. They have fallen into that "giant" fallacy(pun intended) of believing that if they prove you wrong, they must be correct within the vacuum.

You don't have to convince someone against their will. If they want to challenge everything you say, then let them prove it wrong. This nonsense of "prove the sky is blue, prove the sun rises in the east, prove the earth revolves around the sun" is utter nonsense.

You are under no obligation to argue them through their own ignorance.

I guess I could dig up some evidence if you like. All you really have to do is look at the number of regular church goers who identify as R or D. Well, not all, but that's a start.
But my question is...why are you interested in evidence if you don't suspect the conventional wisdom is wrong? It just seems like a posting-debate game to me. Not sure I have the energy to play today.

I actually honestly disagree with your assertion that liberals are significantly more atheist than conservatives. What you may be able to contend is that conservative atheists are less likely to openly admit that they are atheist. Self-perception has more to do with answering questions about one's views than a person's actual views.

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."

I wouldn't worry about it SDW. I few people on here lately have been challenging all statements simply because they feel like creating work for others. They have fallen into that "giant" fallacy(pun intended) of believing that if they prove you wrong, they must be correct within the vacuum.

You don't have to convince someone against their will. If they want to challenge everything you say, then let them prove it wrong. This nonsense of "prove the sky is blue, prove the sun rises in the east, prove the earth revolves around the sun" is utter nonsense.

You are under no obligation to argue them through their own ignorance.

Nick

Well there you go.

Nick 'We Don't Need Facts Where We're Going" Trumptman

"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."